Talk:Delta-V (Internet Protocol)

IMHO, YES definitely says MBParker (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the edits: 12:35, 1 January 2009 Mrzaius (551 bytes) (why on earth is this a separate article?), User:Mrzaius marking the top of this article of questionable notability and deleting a whole section (client & servers). Moreover, anyone can see on the History tab, this page has survived 2 years with some notable improvements by 8+ people, so why is brand new user 9 on this page, User:Mrzaius, deleting from it and marking down on it now?? Please tell us here if you feel so strongly --indeed to make these semi-drastic changes without even first starting some discussion on it with the other creators.

So, after carefully considering what was done, I've undone these changes and instead started a discussion of such changes here (as would seem the appropriate thing to have been done in the first place). Here is the start of that discussion:
 * 1) I argue Delta V is notable and quite deserving of its own page, indeed:
 * 2) much work has been done on this feature of WebDAV in terms of designing it & implementing this important enhancement, as
 * 3) Delta-V is often not preset in WebDAV and indeed moves it to a new level.
 * 4) Also note the survival of this page of 2 years, and the improvements by different people.
 * 5) Moreover, I've been on the lookout on Delta-V client & servers myself, and it's a much more complex and much-harder-to-find feature.
 * 6) Moreover, see my next point:
 * 7) Also deleted was the entire (though small) section on Client and Servers.  This may be because the section appeared that was to be merely a reference back to [[WebDAV].  This mis-impression may be my error, and I will correct that now; I will add some more text.  Rather, there is a lot of stuff to discuss on DeltaV, deserving of it's own page, and hopefully having the page will encourage that further discussion.

It wasn't "marked down," and if I was certain it didn't warrant separate coverage then I assure you it that the two-three sentences worth of content missing from WebDAV would have been covered in its entirety. What I did do was point out that the article is not compliant with long-standing requirements for notability to be backed up by multiple reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Barring their presence and the presence of more than a paragraph or two of prose, a merger of this article and the WebDAV one still makes sense - If Delta-V is purely an extension of WebDAV and can be dealt with in one or two paragraphs, it makes a lot more sense to cover it there, in terms of good writing. The longevity and (rather small) number of editors doesn't play into it at all, but I would point out that no fewer than 5 editors, myself included, weren't contributing to the content of the article but merely performing routine housekeeping tasks. MrZaius talk  07:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the few interesting pieces of information can easily be integrated into the WebDAV page. I'd also like to avoid another software list, which will be spammed anyway. Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Note that the Xythos server has only very limited DeltaV support, and the Subversion support isn't even sufficient for a generic client to get a version history. There are better examples (such as Apache Jackrabbit and SAP Netweaver KM). Reschke (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And, as of today, people indeed start adding links to their products. This is not what a Wikipedia article is for. I recommend to take out the list of implementations. Reschke (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case there'd be two sentences of prose. Merging, although that in no way precludes an editor from breaking it back out after expanding it at the parent article. Again, though, please do expand coverage at WebDAV first. Creating an article for its own sake isn't the right thing to do here - Good writing means introducing the topic in a context where it matters, not orphaned in an stub. MrZaius  talk  23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computing
I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)